“Disgruntled Missionaries:” The Friendship of and Mary Neal and Emmeline Pethick Lawrence at the West London Mission”1 Ellen Ross, Ramapo College of N.J., Mahwah, N.J. 07430 February 2009 Mary Neal is best known today as a folklorist and music and dance educator but her first career was as a missionary. Having been a discontent young woman at home, in her late twenties Neal found her identity—her talent for working with children, her love of folk song, and her socialism—through her association with the West London Mission (WLM), based in Soho, and through friendship with another of the missionaries, Emmeline Pethick. Clara Sophia, who took the name of Sister Mary, was an early member of the West London Mission (WLM), arriving soon after it opened in the fall of 1887 to join its newly forming deaconess-like “Sisters of the People.” Emmeline Pethick (1867-1954) arrived in 1891. Their attachment was solidified by their similarity of background; and by the frank admiration for each other’s looks, voice, and wit that evokes what Sharon Marcus calls the “classic sentimental friendship” of the mid-Victorian decades. With Mary, seven years older, often as the navigator, the pair reckoned with the severe poverty of their district and began to comprehend the hardships of the teenagers in their evening club for working girls. They also negotiated the churning political and intellectual seas of the wider world of the 1890s. Over just a few years, from 1891 to 1895, when they left the Mission, Neal and Pethick transformed themselves from restless Christian daughters to educators, social thinkers, and founders of an innovative early settlement. Here I will consider the young women’s path within and then away from the structured and homelike environment of the Mission with its attractive “mother” and “father” figures in the form of the Mission’s Superintendent, Hugh Price Hughes, and his still-young wife, Katherine Price 2 Hughes (KPH). Resigning in the late summer of 1895, they established a productive new base in Somers Town, just north of the Mission’s turf. The parts of their lives for which each is better known were still several years in the future. These two are not among their age’s fabled pairs of female friends or lovers such as Frances Power Cobbe and Mary Lloyd, or Vera Brittain and Winifred Holtby. Indeed another leading Sister, told a Charles Booth assistant in the late 1890s that the Sisters were too busy for friendship; she believed that the Mission should actually avoid recruiting “that class of person” who comes seeking ”many dear friendships.” Emmeline and Mary disagreed. They were gregarious women, with enormous networks of deeply loved friends and kin; and their own relationship was a very intimate one that continued through their lives. Yet I think Mary was more tuned into her vaguer and flightier friend than vice versa. It was Mary who realized within minutes of their meeting in 1899 that Emmeline would marry Fred Lawrence-- interrupting the life the two women had created in Somers Town, a life which to Mary had seemed “would go on just so for ever.” “But the gods had decided otherwise,” Mary wrote, her tone of fatalism adding another dimension to the statement. Mary also reports a few instances of intense identification with her friend. As one example, when Emmeline, now a militant suffragist, was imprisoned and forcibly fed, in 1912, Mary Neal could not swallow for an entire evening. The Sisters of the People were hardly “New Women.” However mild and democratic the Sisterhood was, its members were uniformed, lived under a rule, and were enlisted in Christian service as well as social work. Yet Emmeline defined her time at the Sisterhood as an exciting trek with “discovery at every step.” With the support of their Mission superiors, the Sisters moved into arenas in Methodism from which women had been excluded for decades. They were encouraged to do street preaching, and to conduct their own services. In doing this they could draw not only on the Salvation Army as a model but on the evangelical tradition of attributing such female religious 3 activism to a calling from God rather than a freely made individual choice. But the Sisterhood’s members were at least somewhat analogous to the thousands of others of their generation who were part of a major women’s movement into the slums of Great Britain, only some of whom were connected with religious institutions. The WLM Sisterhood originated experiments in social services: old age pensions, employment registries, crèches, children’s play groups, country vacations for teens, programs for disabled children, and so on. Two of the Sisters became Poor Law Guardians. Few female social observers began their careers as missionaries, however, which make Mary Neal and Emmeline Pethick an interesting variant on the more usual forms of recruitment of women into slum work. The West London Mission’s Sisterhood along with Mary Neal and Emmeline Pethick have important places in the stories of British religion, social work, and women’s work, as well as female relationships. The Sisters of the People is an institution almost completely neglected by historians, yet larger (36 full-time Sisters in 1895), more active, and more innovative than many of the better- known women’s (or men’s) settlements of the same era. And though the Booth researchers expected the organization to decline as the founding Sisters aged, the Sisterhood renewed itself continuously and was very active through the Second World War. Mary Neal and Emmeline Pethick are also significant historical actors. Emmeline Pethick figures as a main player in the suffrage movement, one of its most effective orators, but the Mission phase of her life—in which she learned public speaking--is little appreciated. In Mary’s case, the story of the English folklore revival of the early 1900s is currently being enriched and complicated through recognition of her part in it. The recovery model is especially apt in the case of Mary Neal, whose leadership in the early 1900s movement to preserve and re-enliven English folk music and dance was almost literally stolen by her colleague Cecil Sharpe, whose successors succeeded in obliterating her from the history of their movement. Their Folk Music Journal barely mentioned her until Roy Judge, a professional Morris dancer, got 4 interested in Neal and in 1989 published a detailed article on her place in their movement. Her great- great grandniece Lucy Neal, in London, an arts administrator and activist in community theater, has been working to revive the memory and the passions of her fascinating forbear—as demonstrated by Mary Neal Day at Cecil Sharp House in London (February 7, 2009). The early 1890s Emmeline and Mary—like most of the Sisters--came from the wealthy business classes. Mary was the daughter of a successful Birmingham button manufacturer, Emmeline’s farm and merchant family had moved from Bristol to Weston-super-Mare (Somerset) when she was a child. Family issues of different kinds pulled both of them from these homes. Mary was repelled by the hypocrisy of her household and at the “utter unreality of everyday life, the complete cleavage between what one really was and liked or disliked, and the outward life of conventional ideas and conduct.”2 For Mary, all it took was hearing about it to experience the “instant appeal” of the Sisterhood. She was in London within just of few weeks. For Emmeline it was personal and family connections with the Mission personnel that drew her to London. Mark Guy Pearse, a popular religious speaker and writer, and eventually second in charge of the Mission, was a neighbor and good friend of the Pethicks. From childhood, Emmeline had been enchanted by the playful and affectionate Pearse, and she was also a close friend of his daughter Mabelle. Both women seem to have been good evangelical Christians on their arrival in Soho. They were temperance advocates and street preachers; they visited the local poor and the Mission’s members daily, Bibles in hand. They easily accepted the Mission’s injunction against dancing in the girls club that they ran, and exacted a promise from club members that they would “sing no songs which they would not like Jesus Christ to hear.” They rejoiced at the conversions they made among the girls. Their loyalty to and importance in the Mission, which both minimized in their later life 5 accounts, may be seen through the number and variety of their efforts on its behalf—on top of their regular Mission work. Emmeline joined numerous fundraising delegations to other cities and undertook regular visiting at the St. Pancras Workhouse. Mary ran an employment office for domestic servants, and seemingly took a big role in the production of its monthly magazine, Advance! Each young woman, encouraged by their “Sister Superior,” Katherine Price Hughes, developed new skills and strengths. Mary was a prolific writer for Mission and several other publications. Emmeline, whose “very attractive speaking voice” and slight West Country accent Mary noticed immediately, found a calling as a public speaker. The recognition she got for this made her “aware of new power.” She was often the object Hugh Price Hughes’s admiration, and he was generous in his praise. When it was her turn to speak, he wrote, describing a Mission event in 1894, “Sister Emmeline followed with an oration of such stately and classical eloquence as she has accustomed us to expect.” The inspiration for the Sisterhood was KPH’s, based in large measure on her reading of Giuseppe Mazzini, though Quakers, Catholic nuns, and Salvation Army lassies also figured in her thinking.